Reliable source for news

Started by Levas, November 15, 2013, 11:41:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


ok, what are more or less reliable sources for current news etc.? Not blogs, but perhaps some newspapers that has moved into the web or so? If I understand correctly, Washington Post and Daily Mail are the jokes of the news world. I usually check Al Jazeera or bbc, but none of these satisfies me. And I'm not talking about the local ones where the headlines are of Kim Kardashian going to the gym and if you look really carefully, you can find that US government has been shut down. What are you using?


I feel like I remember a thread about news sources before, but I can't seem to find it.

I mostly check the BBC myself, but I also like to read the Philadelphia Enquirer to keep up on some local news.


The Daily Mail is a total joke of paper. It seems to focus on making everyone terrified of getting cancer, scared of terrorists and foreign people and generally making all women feel like shit because they don't look like emaciated models. But I do find it quite amusing to read their reporting whenever someone like a paedophile is arrested because the language they use compared to other papers is really amusing. The Sun was good for this too but they've a got a pay-wall up now.

I'm not aware of a really good news source. I normally read the Guardian (UK paper) but it is quite pompous and there are quite a lot of spineless liberals in the comment section whining about the most petty things. A lot of stories from the PC faggot section seems to come from this paper! But it's better than the other main UK papers in my opinion.

I read a really good book a while back called 'Flat Earth News'. It's written by an ex-journalist (who I'm pretty sure worked for the Guardian) and it's his analysis of how the main five newspapers in the UK have changed over the years. Corporate ownership of most of them means that lots of cutbacks were implemented so lots of staff were sacked so the remaining staff had the same work load as before, if not more, and even less time to write their stories but most importantly less time to check their sources. It's easier to just copy and paste from newsfeeds and PR reports.

The other main problem I feel is 24 hour news. All news companies now strive to be the first to break a story. I don't really see why this is a good thing. To see how useless 24 hour news is one only has to tune in when a massive disaster/violent attach has happened. The reporters are left to keep talking and talking over looped footage even though they have nothing new to add. It's this kind of attitude that leads to morons printing blatantly false information. I think the best recent example of this was when the New York Post (I think it was that paper) printed photos of two innocent men claiming they were the Boston bombers.


BBC is becoming increasingly more selective it seems over what it covers, possibly as a result of governmental pressure/silencing perhaps. I only use BBC for sports results.

I occasionally flick up RT as it does seem to plug some of the aforementioned gaps in current affairs.